Masterpiece: Robotron 2084

Robotron 2084 helped create the genre of twin-stick shooters, and it still …

When you pick up a game for the first time, you're often subjected to tutorial levels or sections that hold your hand until you master the game's mechanics... and these sections can last an uncomfortably long time.

It's no wonder that many of us often find solace in the high-concept games of the classical arcade era, that beautiful time in the 1980s when Pac-Man was god and Defender was thought to be too damn confusing. There is one game that towers above even those in my—admittedly minority—opinion: Robotron 2084.

The game popularized the twin-stick design, where one joystick moved your character and the other controlled your direction of fire. (You only had one weapon.) The joysticks were of course digital back then, so you could only move and shoot in eight directions. There was no scrolling and there were no surprises. The game showed you the entirety of the level for a second before play began; you had a tiny moment to see the four walls and to take in where the enemies were and in what numbers. This was the game's way of bowing at you before the attack.

Four walls, monstrous enemies, a human family

Robotron 2084 was, above everything else, fair. It showed you everything it had, and then it tried to kill you.

The game's story is minimal: you are a superhuman in the titular year, fighting to save surviving humans from the robots hellbent on destroying their humanity. Before the game even begins things have gone to hell, and the game gives you a sense of desperation even with the limited graphics and colors of the time. These aren't just survivors, you're told, this is "the last human family." You're put in an impossible situation, and you can try to fight your way out, but in the end you will succumb to the enemy's advanced numbers.

Can we imagine that Eugene Jarvis, the creator of both Defender and Robotron 2084, felt some impending doom or lost someone close to him? In both games you have to save nearly helpless humans from an encroaching threat. In his mind, who were these people? Why was destruction so assured?

In 1990, Jarvis helped to further chase these concepts with the also-classic Smash TV, but that game doesn't elicit the same kind of primal reaction Robotron enjoyed. In Smash TV, the player fights in a sort of Running Man-esque game show for cash and prizes against waves of enemies that enter the arena. There is no one to save, and new waves enter the arena as each level progresses.

In Robotron, you begin the game in the middle of the screen, with every enemy you're going to fight in that level already on display. There are no surprises, there is nothing hidden up the game's sleeve. This is a deal you will rarely get in life, an experience that calmly shows you everything it has to offer before throwing it all at you.

The dual-stick shooter is an overdone style among each console's digital distribution services. Notable examples include Geometry Wars, Everyday Shooter, and Super Stardust HD. But there was a certain power in the simplicity of Robotron. After a while, players begin to look through the screen, trying to find the patterns and an ephemeral path through the attacking hordes in order to survive until the next level. There is nothing else to worry about or to work out.

Who needs scrolling levels? Who needs surprises? Robotron is a fist fight between you and a worthy opponent. It feels like a duel, even if the flashing graphics suggest a sickly sweet radioactive nightmare. Everything is sharp noises and bright colors, but the gameplay, if nothing else, is honorable. Today, everyone respects it, but everyone thinks they can improve the mechanics in some way...

Bliss is finding an arcade with a well-maintained machine that still runs on a single quarter. If the time comes when I can't find one, I'll buy one for our basement and teach my sons to play properly. Robotron 2084, in some ways, teaches you to be a gentleman. Albeit a slightly brutal one.

Come to Rochester, NY, where I just ploughed token after token into a perfect working copy at The Museum of Play's arcade exhibit. I was reacquainted with Robotron, Tetris, Missile Command, DigDug, Ms. Pacman and Tron.

And you know, my childhood memories aren't that accurate. The Tron cabinet is the best part of that game. Robotron holds up well, I agree. Tetris does, of course. Missile Command and Space Invaders are still great but I'm not as good as I remember. Pacman, the racing games (pole position) and Star Wars, Star Trek, not so much fun to me. Btw, if you're in the area and you have a small child, it's a perfect way to experience the games again. I can't stand Daytona's graphics anymore, but for my son, it was like a carnival ride.

It seems simple now, but when the game was first released many thought it was too complex for most gamers and it was thought its prospects for commercial success were low.

I remember the button layout being more complicated than it needed to be. Stick movement only on the y axis and button just to change x axis and another for boost in that axis. If I remembered correctly, it would still be awkward for anyone playing today.

I had difficulty getting Joust down well. But yeah, Robotron was king. And the sounds! To this day I still love those SFX. I mix them into my DJ sets every now and again - and if memory serves, DJ Shadow is known to drop hose in as "bleeps" for expletives for his radio friendly material from time to time.

Nice article, though. What prompted you to write it? Was it something at E3, or did you see it recently?

Robotron was my second favorite of the Williams games. Awesome game, still have fun on it any time I see an arcade unit somewhere (fairly rare!). Never really got the hang of Defender/Stargate, although I loved trying -- too many controls to simultaneously coordinate.

My #1 favorite Williams game was Sinistar. Still love the "I hunger", "Run coward!" and other cool little voice bits.

When you pick up a game for the first time, you're often subjected to tutorial levels or sections that hold your hand until you master the game's mechanics... and these sections can last an uncomfortably long time.

No, we can't have that. We can't actually introduce the gameplay to the player; that might help them get better at the game at their own pace. And we can't allow that.

People do this these days because:

1: It's good game design. Period.

2: Games aren't pay per play anymore. That's the only legitimate reason to just hurl someone into the gameplay.

This is obvious stuff. Teaching the player how to play the game is a categorically good thing.

I will never understand the fetishizing of the bad gameplay that arcade games exemplify. These were games designed to take your money! Everything about them existed solely to achieve this purpose. And before you ask, yes, I did indeed play many of those games when they were new (though not Robotron). That doesn't change the fact that they're bad gameplay. Seriously people, get past your nostalgia filter.

If you think it's good design to explain to the player how to DUCK or SHOOT using a forced tutorial or voice-over we're going to often have disagreements about this hobby of ours. Maybe have a section where the narrator says they're going to "calibrate your systems" and that's how the tutorial is done? You're right. It's obvious stuff. That's why it's so terrible and boring.

Also, I agree that Defender wasn't too hard (even for primitive 1970s brains), but the control layout was decidedly obtuse. To this day I'm not sure why they made changing direction a button when there was a perfectly good joystick right there on the cabinet.

I 2nd what Miwa said, it's a toss-up between Robotron and Tempest. Simple gameplay, perfect execution, completely absorbing in a stream-of-consciousness, pure nervous reflex sort of way. The world outside the monitor didn't exist until "GAME OVER" was on the screen and I was out of quarters.

Also, I agree that Defender wasn't too hard (even for primitive 1970s brains), but the control layout was decidedly obtuse. To this day I'm not sure why they made changing direction a button when there was a perfectly good joystick right there on the cabinet.

Bingo! The gameplay of Defender wasn't bad, but I remember back then looking at it, trying it, and thinking "fooey, this sux." Sadly it was the control scheme.

And yes, Robotron 2084 rules them all !!!!! The remake for PS2 completely failed because it did exactly the opposite - new enemies kept dropping into the level while you played. I haven't enjoyed a twin-stick game as much until Super Stardust HD - which even though it drops in new enemies during the level, somehow never feels cheap or unfair. Even when it's kicking my ass.

Yeah, it's a good thing they have the forced tutorials at the beginning of CoD (or any other FPS) because players have no idea how the controls work on those games....oh wait.

The tutorials can be needlessly long, but a lot of shooter will switch up what the buttons do. Click left thumbstick to reload, or is it X or is it the right bumper, etc. Games could stick to the loading screen control display most times, afaiac.

I remember the button layout being more complicated than it needed to be. Stick movement only on the y axis and button just to change x axis and another for boost in that axis. If I remembered correctly, it would still be awkward for anyone playing today.

Up/Down Joystick, reverse, thrust, fire, smart bomb and hyperspace (teleport) buttons if I remember correctly. The buttons were self explanatory. Hyperspace (teleport) was only for emergencies because you would die if you teleported into an object.

What trip most people up is that they got confused by trying the continually thrust while firing as the fire button only releases a single shot(?) when depressed. They should switch to rapid taps of both the thrust and the fire button when they need to fire. The holy grail of most Defender players was to have the fire button when depressed continuously fired. I did find a machine that had this feature but it was a useless feature because you would be moving too fast, holding down the thrust and the fire button, to play the game properly.

This is obvious stuff. Teaching the player how to play the game is a categorically good thing.

I will never understand the fetishizing of the bad gameplay that arcade games exemplify. These were games designed to take your money! Everything about them existed solely to achieve this purpose. And before you ask, yes, I did indeed play many of those games when they were new (though not Robotron). That doesn't change the fact that they're bad gameplay. Seriously people, get past your nostalgia filter.

IIRC, Robotron was before the era of the the money eaters that pretty much were designed to be so hard so they could take a quarter or more ever 2 min. The early era games (say, for the most part, pre 1987ish) were geared to be played for as long as you were good enough to keep going. If you sucked, you were poor. The rest of my comments are focused on this era before the "insert to continue" M.O. became prevalent. Some of these early games had it, but it wasn't being abused _yet_.

A tutorial would not fit the format. It's great for the noob, but it would drive the skilled player away because you'd have to suffer through it. AND it would add to the dreaded queue time.

As Ben pointed out, there wasn't too much to learn in terms of mechanics for most of these games (Joust being one of the exceptions). Learning the games was supposed to be simple. Mastering the game was supposed to be very hard.

From my point of view, bad game play is forcing you to spend 20 minutes or _more_ running your avatar across empty space/plains because the MMORPG designer couldn't figure out how to compress that time meaningfully (missing both good game play from the computer game perspective and RPG perspective). Or... spending endless hours "crafting".

Requiring your players to be skilled at the game isn't the same thing as bad game play. That's what people wanted at the time, so it was good game play for the time. Whether people want that now is a different point altogether. We WANTED "Nintendo Hard" because you proved your chops by how long you could run without feeding more quarters.

Robotron, Defender, Joust all +++++++ in my book. Never played SmashTv that I can recall.

No, we can't have that. We can't actually introduce the gameplay to the player; that might help them get better at the game at their own pace. And we can't allow that.

People do this these days because:

1: It's good game design. Period.

Yeah, it's a good thing they have the forced tutorials at the beginning of CoD (or any other FPS) because players have no idea how the controls work on those games....oh wait.

The ones that work best don't have tutorials - in the early levels (which aren't just stupid tutorial levels) they show you the controls as they become needed, and ramp up the gameplay along the way. Seems like a natural way to learn the game to me.

But I do miss the days when games weren't so complex... 4 buttons, 4 shoulder buttons, twin analog sticks, a D-pad for additional functions, hold this button to change control mode, sheesh. I want to point, shoot, and blow stuff up!

Oh man, I distinctly remember that sensation! I knew I was going to get my quarter's worth if I felt my eyes defocus and I was seeing everything at once in a kind of fuzzy peripheral vision kind of way. Trying to shift my focus around the screen to look at everything always got me killed fast.

Also, I agree that Defender wasn't too hard (even for primitive 1970s brains), but the control layout was decidedly obtuse. To this day I'm not sure why they made changing direction a button when there was a perfectly good joystick right there on the cabinet.

They joystick only went up and down and there are nuances with the separate thrust and reverse buttons that using a four/eight way joystick won't emulate.